4.5 Article

A Taxus leafy branch with attached ovules from the Lower Cretaceous of Inner Mongolia, North China

期刊

CRETACEOUS RESEARCH
卷 54, 期 -, 页码 266-282

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cretres.2014.12.014

关键词

Taxus; Ovules; Lower Cretaceous; Phylogenetic implications; Evolutionary implications; China

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) [2012CB822003]
  2. Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education [20120211110022]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41172022, 41272026]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [lzujbky-2014-284]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Taxus guyangensis sp. nov. is from the Lower Cretaceous Guyang Formation of the Guyang Basin of Inner Mongolia in northern China, based on an excellently preserved leafy branch with attached leaves and seed-bearing structures. Three ovules occur on the leafy branch. A pair of ovules is borne on the terminal ovuliferous shoot, and another one appears on the terminal of a lateral shoot. The aril and three pairs of decussate bracts are preserved at the base of a mature ovule. This fossil is the most complete evidence of this genus currently known. This discovery also indicates that the multi-ovulate shoot of Taxus existed in the Early Cretaceous. The reliable fossil record of Taxus is summarized in detail. Comparisons of T guyangensis sp. nov. with living and previously published reliable fossil species of Taxus and Taxus-like fossils reveal that the present fossil materials cannot be assigned to any of these species. T. guyangensis has a close resemblance to extant T brevzfolia and might have represented the ancestral taxa of T brevifolia. The new species together with other known fossil record of Taxus show that the age of Taxus dates back to the Early Cretaceous and that the divergence time of Taxus and Pseudotaxus is probably no later than the Early Cretaceous. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据